https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jopy.12514

Background:

Findings from the budget allocation task tend to support the mate preference priority model (Li, Valentine, & Patel, 2011). According to this model, ancestral humans who chose long‐term partners that were unable to reproduce or function within a pair‐bond, even if they possessed other desirable characteristics, typically produced fewer offspring than those who chose otherwise. Thus, there was a selection pressure for men and women to prioritize traits crucial to reproductive success when picking a mate. This pressure led us to evolve psychological mechanisms that bias our mate preferences toward ensuring, first and foremost, that we obtain a sufficient level of those attributes fundamental for successful reproduction (Jonason, Nolland, & Tyler, 2017; Li et al., 2002, 2011, 2013).

Three traits that consistently emerge as necessities in tests of the model are physical attractiveness, kindness, and social status. Each would have been important for successful reproduction in the ancestral past. Physical attractiveness would have been a cue of fertility, and offspring produced with a physically attractive partner would likely be desirable mates themselves (Bovet, Barkat‐Defradas, Durand, Faurie, & Raymond, 2018; Cornwell & Perrett, 2008; Pflüger, Oberzaucher, Katina, Holzleitner, & Grammer, 2012; Rosenthal, 2017). Choosing a kind and empathetic partner would have been fundamental to successful pair‐bonding, the primary mating arrangement in humans (Geary, 2000; Stewart‐Williams & Thomas, 2013). Kindness is also associated with greater parenting skills (e.g., responsiveness; Prinzie, Stams, Deković, Reijntjes, & Belsky, 2009) and may reflect the extent to which a partner is capable of cooperating and willing to share his or her reproductive resources (Jensen‐ Campbell, Graziano, & West, 1995; Li et al., 2002).

This research: "the largest and most diverse exploration of the mate preference priority model to date." A large international sample from 59 Western and Easten countries.

Use of forced-choice methodology with higher ecological validity than self reports (Li et al., 2002).

Results: kindness was the most important trait for mate selection. Physical attractiveness was second. Kindness, physical attractiveness and good finances were the three necessary traits.

Sex differences in necessary traits:

An interaction between trait, budget, and sex (F[7, 17,297] = 41.830, p < .001, ηp 2 = .02) suggested that the pattern of necessities and luxuries might differ by sex. Upon breaking down this interaction, we found that kindness and physical attractiveness were necessities for both sexes. Good financial prospects, however, was now a luxury for men, and a neces- sity for women (see Figure 2).

Physical attractiveness of mates is more important to men, good finances is more important to women:

Sex differences were found in the low budget condition for all traits with the exception of kindness and humor. The most noticeable sex differences were for physical attractiveness (d = 0.55), which tended to receive more dollars from men, and good financial prospects (d = 0.56), which tended to receive more dollars from women (see Table 2).

This seems to be an example of how TRP will choose elements it agrees with but selectively ignore others. Physical attractiveness and finances are correctly associated with your SMV. Kindness, an even more important variable, is ignored (and if discussed, usually done so in the context of a BP trait).